Re: [ANN] Lua Cario binding

[Hakki Dogusan <dogusanh@...>]

Hi,

Jerome Vuarand wrote:
> Hakki Dogusan wrote:
> > I need your advice for cairo_matrix_t; It is declared as:
> >
> > typedef struct _cairo_matrix {
> >      double xx; double yx;
> >      double xy; double yy;
> >      double x0; double y0;
> > } cairo_matrix_t;
> > [...]
> > - named fields,ie:
> >    matrix = {xx=.5, yx=1.0, xy=.9, yy=.3, x0=.3, y0=.2}
> >
> > - or, array, ie:
> >    matrix = {.5, 1.0, .9, .3, .3, .2}
> >
> > - or, something else
>
> I vote for named fields :-)

Ok, recorded :)

> As a general rule, I think C arrays should be put in array part of Lua
> tables, with the same number of dimension, and a 1 offset, and C
> structures should use named fields in tables. The exception would be if
> the array cells are used as pseudo strutct members with constants
> indices (like char* data[2]; data[CST_INDEX_NAME] = "me";
> data[CST_INDEX_ADDRESS] = "here";).
>
> Also the original Cairo designers probably had good reasons to use a
> struct rather than a 1- or 2-dimensionnal array, you shouldn't do the
> contrary unless you have an even better reason to do so.
>
> My 2 cents :-)

Thanks for answering.

--
Regards,
Hakki Dogusan